Tuesday, August 6, 2013

"A Random Survey - Part Two"

At loose ends one recent afternoon, my daily chores, such as
they are, completed – my average day’s work includes forty-minutes of exercise,
to allay my physical deterioration by at least forty-five minutes, forty-five
minutes practicing the piano so I at least won’t play worse than the day before,
though I am not always successful in that aspiration, and, however long it
takes, writing this blog, a duration guaranteed to be shorter if only I can
complete this sentence.

There.I made
it.No, wait, I never got to the “predicate.”Okay, back we go.

“…my daily chores, such as they are, completed, I lay down,
as is my habitual TV watching position –at least currently. I used to
watch TV lying on my back on the floor, my head supported by an inverted “V” formed
by the index and middle finger of my left hand, explaining why I have been
recently required to sign up for a battery of remediatory chiropraction.I then flipped through my numerous cable
movie channels – ranging from Channel 503 to 579 – to see if there was
something on there I wanted to watch.

There wasn’t.But
there almost never is, raising the question “Why we subscribe to all these
movie channels?”Though not raising the
answer.

Having no interest in the movies they were playing, I
decided to take a look at their accompanying logline descriptives, along with
their “star” ratings.The last time had
done this I became perplexed by the fact that the logline descriptives and the “star”
ratings – from one star to four – seemed significantly out of sync, arbitrary
and generally messed up.

I checked out the situation again, to discover if the power
of my having drawn blogal attention to these anomalies had led toany ameliorative alterations.

And here are the results.(Making me seriously wonder if the cable movie providers even read this blog.)

Channel 504 – Monte
Carlo –“Uproarious comedy.”

One star.

(How could an “uproarious comedy” rate only one star?Was it the wrong kind of “uproarious”?Was it
that, though admittedly “uproarious”, there were dozens of other comedies that
were “uproariouser”?Is this a a less common definition, in which “uproarious”
is a negative?

Imagine the writer of Monte
Carlo reading the logline and thinking they loved it, they click down, and
it’s “One star.”

How do you respond to that?Should you be heartily encouraged, or disappear into another line of
work?This is really confusing.)

Channel 506 – Two
Weeks Notice­ ­­– “Delightful Romantic Comedy.”

Two stars.

Help me out here.Is
“delightful” a superior accolade for a comedy than Monte Carlo’s “uproarious”?It
isn’t to me.Maybe it’s the “romantic” that nudges the
rating up a star.Though, personally, I
would lop a star off.

Channel 508 – The
Bone Collector – a “creepy thriller.”

Two stars.

Channel 511 – Safe
House – a “pulse-pounding ride.”

Three stars.

How do you determine that “a pulse-pounding ride” is one
star worthier than “a creepy thriller”?

“My pulse pounded one third more often than I was creeped
out.”

Is that actually measurable?

Channel 521 – Columbiana – “nonstop action thrill
ride.”

One star.

Apparently, this is one of those bad “nonstop action thrill ride” movies.Perhaps if they had stopped the action once
in a while, it might have had a shot at a second star.